Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 861 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 431 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 86 | 50.40 ± 13.00 (25 - 74) | 50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74) | 50.51 ± 12.87 (28 - 73) | 0.936 |
gender | 86 | 0.476 | |||
f | 61 (71%) | 29 (67%) | 32 (74%) | ||
m | 25 (29%) | 14 (33%) | 11 (26%) | ||
occupation | 86 | 0.902 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 10 (12%) | 5 (12%) | 5 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (7.0%) | 3 (7.0%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
other | 2 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
part_time | 15 (17%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (19%) | ||
retired | 21 (24%) | 10 (23%) | 11 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
student | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
unemploy | 23 (27%) | 13 (30%) | 10 (23%) | ||
marital | 86 | 0.686 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
divore | 10 (12%) | 7 (16%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 22 (26%) | 10 (23%) | 12 (28%) | ||
none | 46 (53%) | 22 (51%) | 24 (56%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
edu | 86 | 0.789 | |||
bachelor | 25 (29%) | 9 (21%) | 16 (37%) | ||
diploma | 18 (21%) | 11 (26%) | 7 (16%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
postgraduate | 7 (8.1%) | 4 (9.3%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 10 (12%) | 6 (14%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 16 (19%) | 8 (19%) | 8 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
fam_income | 86 | 0.890 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
20001_above | 14 (16%) | 7 (16%) | 7 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 13 (15%) | 9 (21%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | 6 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (10%) | 5 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (8.1%) | 3 (7.0%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
below_2000 | 12 (14%) | 6 (14%) | 6 (14%) | ||
medication | 86 | 76 (88%) | 39 (91%) | 37 (86%) | 0.501 |
onset_duration | 86 | 15.31 ± 10.90 (0 - 56) | 16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56) | 13.97 ± 9.56 (0 - 35) | 0.255 |
onset_age | 86 | 35.09 ± 14.00 (14 - 64) | 33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58) | 36.55 ± 15.09 (15 - 64) | 0.337 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 861 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 431 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 86 | 3.07 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.05 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.858 |
recovery_stage_b | 86 | 18.03 ± 2.64 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23) | 18.21 ± 2.53 (13 - 23) | 0.543 |
ras_confidence | 86 | 30.17 ± 4.73 (19 - 43) | 29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40) | 30.72 ± 5.12 (20 - 43) | 0.286 |
ras_willingness | 86 | 12.23 ± 1.94 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15) | 12.40 ± 2.01 (7 - 15) | 0.439 |
ras_goal | 86 | 17.63 ± 2.86 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24) | 17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 0.653 |
ras_reliance | 86 | 13.09 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18) | 13.21 ± 3.00 (8 - 20) | 0.702 |
ras_domination | 86 | 9.93 ± 2.33 (3 - 15) | 10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15) | 9.44 ± 2.30 (3 - 14) | 0.051 |
symptom | 86 | 30.36 ± 9.77 (14 - 56) | 31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55) | 28.77 ± 9.47 (15 - 56) | 0.131 |
slof_work | 86 | 22.85 ± 4.85 (10 - 30) | 22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30) | 23.16 ± 5.25 (10 - 30) | 0.552 |
slof_relationship | 86 | 25.85 ± 5.89 (11 - 35) | 25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35) | 26.58 ± 5.80 (11 - 35) | 0.251 |
satisfaction | 86 | 20.60 ± 6.70 (5 - 32) | 18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29) | 22.35 ± 6.53 (5 - 32) | 0.015 |
mhc_emotional | 86 | 11.20 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17) | 11.72 ± 3.98 (4 - 18) | 0.197 |
mhc_social | 86 | 15.06 ± 5.24 (6 - 30) | 15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30) | 14.98 ± 5.28 (6 - 26) | 0.886 |
mhc_psychological | 86 | 22.15 ± 5.86 (6 - 36) | 21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36) | 22.74 ± 6.26 (6 - 36) | 0.351 |
resilisnce | 86 | 16.65 ± 4.47 (6 - 27) | 16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24) | 17.02 ± 4.78 (7 - 27) | 0.444 |
social_provision | 86 | 13.72 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20) | 14.19 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 0.130 |
els_value_living | 86 | 17.15 ± 2.90 (5 - 25) | 16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22) | 17.79 ± 3.26 (5 - 25) | 0.040 |
els_life_fulfill | 86 | 12.66 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.79 ± 3.12 (4 - 20) | 0.001 |
els | 86 | 29.81 ± 5.58 (9 - 45) | 28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36) | 31.58 ± 5.96 (9 - 45) | 0.003 |
social_connect | 86 | 26.87 ± 9.17 (8 - 48) | 27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45) | 25.91 ± 10.02 (8 - 48) | 0.332 |
shs_agency | 86 | 14.62 ± 4.76 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21) | 15.49 ± 5.06 (3 - 24) | 0.089 |
shs_pathway | 86 | 16.58 ± 3.88 (4 - 24) | 16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24) | 17.14 ± 4.01 (4 - 23) | 0.184 |
shs | 86 | 31.20 ± 8.17 (7 - 47) | 29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45) | 32.63 ± 8.51 (7 - 47) | 0.105 |
esteem | 86 | 12.69 ± 1.52 (10 - 18) | 12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18) | 12.44 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.137 |
mlq_search | 86 | 15.02 ± 3.23 (3 - 21) | 14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21) | 15.19 ± 3.42 (3 - 21) | 0.643 |
mlq_presence | 86 | 13.57 ± 4.09 (3 - 21) | 13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21) | 13.81 ± 4.49 (3 - 21) | 0.583 |
mlq | 86 | 28.59 ± 6.51 (6 - 42) | 28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40) | 29.00 ± 7.14 (6 - 42) | 0.565 |
empower | 86 | 19.44 ± 4.03 (6 - 28) | 18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24) | 19.93 ± 4.51 (6 - 28) | 0.264 |
ismi_resistance | 86 | 14.78 ± 2.59 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19) | 15.14 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 0.199 |
ismi_discrimation | 86 | 11.44 ± 3.13 (5 - 19) | 12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19) | 10.47 ± 3.12 (5 - 19) | 0.003 |
sss_affective | 86 | 10.03 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 9.51 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.194 |
sss_behavior | 86 | 9.67 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.95 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.091 |
sss_cognitive | 86 | 8.26 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 7.86 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 0.333 |
sss | 86 | 27.97 ± 10.62 (9 - 54) | 29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 26.33 ± 10.60 (9 - 54) | 0.153 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.09 | 0.180 | 2.74, 3.45 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.047 | 0.255 | -0.545, 0.452 | 0.855 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.222 | 0.267 | -0.300, 0.745 | 0.407 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.250 | 0.377 | -0.489, 0.990 | 0.510 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.418 | 17.0, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.349 | 0.592 | -0.811, 1.51 | 0.557 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.341 | 0.582 | -1.48, 0.800 | 0.560 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.962 | 0.823 | -0.652, 2.58 | 0.247 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.753 | 28.2, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 1.065 | -0.994, 3.18 | 0.307 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.309 | 0.802 | -1.26, 1.88 | 0.702 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.16 | 1.134 | -1.06, 3.39 | 0.310 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.302 | 11.5, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.326 | 0.427 | -0.512, 1.16 | 0.448 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.706 | 0.297 | -1.29, -0.124 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.792 | 0.420 | -0.032, 1.61 | 0.065 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.462 | 16.6, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.279 | 0.653 | -1.00, 1.56 | 0.670 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.955 | 0.520 | -1.97, 0.063 | 0.071 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.84 | 0.735 | 0.401, 3.28 | 0.015 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.418 | 12.2, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.233 | 0.591 | -0.925, 1.39 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.475 | 0.412 | -0.333, 1.28 | 0.254 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.853 | 0.583 | -0.290, 2.00 | 0.149 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.345 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.977 | 0.488 | -1.93, -0.019 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.572 | 0.449 | -1.45, 0.307 | 0.208 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.70 | 0.634 | 0.456, 2.94 | 0.010 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 32.0 | 1.483 | 29.0, 34.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.19 | 2.097 | -7.30, 0.925 | 0.132 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.176 | 1.166 | -2.11, 2.46 | 0.881 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.72 | 1.650 | -4.96, 1.51 | 0.301 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.744 | 21.1, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.628 | 1.053 | -1.43, 2.69 | 0.552 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.801 | 0.616 | -2.01, 0.407 | 0.200 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.183 | 0.871 | -1.52, 1.89 | 0.835 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 0.887 | 23.4, 26.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.47 | 1.254 | -0.992, 3.92 | 0.246 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.972 | 0.863 | -2.66, 0.720 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.20 | 1.221 | -1.19, 3.60 | 0.329 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 1.035 | 16.8, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.49 | 1.463 | 0.620, 6.36 | 0.019 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.791 | 1.199 | -1.56, 3.14 | 0.512 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.140 | 1.696 | -3.46, 3.18 | 0.935 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.063 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.569 | 9.56, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.804 | -0.530, 2.62 | 0.196 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.234 | 0.534 | -0.813, 1.28 | 0.663 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.392 | 0.756 | -1.87, 1.09 | 0.606 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.837 | 13.5, 16.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.163 | 1.184 | -2.48, 2.16 | 0.891 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 0.924 | -0.790, 2.83 | 0.274 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.823 | 1.307 | -3.38, 1.74 | 0.531 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.952 | 19.7, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 1.347 | -1.45, 3.83 | 0.381 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.708 | 1.000 | -1.25, 2.67 | 0.482 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.389 | 1.415 | -3.16, 2.38 | 0.784 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.673 | 15.0, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.951 | -1.12, 2.61 | 0.436 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.050 | 0.720 | -1.46, 1.36 | 0.945 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.25 | 1.019 | -0.752, 3.24 | 0.227 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.441 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.930 | 0.624 | -0.293, 2.15 | 0.139 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.782 | 0.527 | -1.81, 0.250 | 0.143 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.921 | 0.745 | -0.539, 2.38 | 0.221 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.5 | 0.455 | 15.6, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.28 | 0.643 | 0.019, 2.54 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.058 | 0.480 | -0.883, 0.999 | 0.904 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.392 | 0.679 | -0.939, 1.72 | 0.566 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.056 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.464 | 10.6, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.26 | 0.657 | 0.968, 3.54 | 0.001 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.917 | 0.466 | 0.005, 1.83 | 0.054 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.590 | 0.659 | -1.88, 0.700 | 0.374 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.112 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.833 | 26.4, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.53 | 1.178 | 1.23, 5.84 | 0.003 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.937 | 0.800 | -0.631, 2.51 | 0.247 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.140 | 1.131 | -2.36, 2.08 | 0.902 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.098 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.421 | 25.1, 30.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.93 | 2.010 | -5.87, 2.01 | 0.339 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.426 | 1.195 | -1.92, 2.77 | 0.723 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.78 | 1.690 | -5.09, 1.53 | 0.297 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.734 | 12.3, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.74 | 1.038 | -0.290, 3.78 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.075 | 0.758 | -1.41, 1.56 | 0.921 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.547 | 1.072 | -1.55, 2.65 | 0.612 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.589 | 14.9, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.12 | 0.833 | -0.516, 2.75 | 0.183 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.106 | 0.596 | -1.06, 1.27 | 0.860 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.188 | 0.842 | -1.84, 1.46 | 0.825 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.246 | 27.3, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.86 | 1.763 | -0.595, 6.32 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.185 | 1.240 | -2.25, 2.61 | 0.882 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.370 | 1.753 | -3.07, 3.81 | 0.834 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.214 | 12.5, 13.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.488 | 0.303 | -1.08, 0.106 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.008 | 0.319 | -0.616, 0.632 | 0.980 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.317 | 0.450 | -0.566, 1.20 | 0.486 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.497 | 13.9, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.326 | 0.703 | -1.05, 1.70 | 0.644 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.386 | 0.583 | -1.53, 0.757 | 0.511 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.016 | 0.825 | -1.60, 1.63 | 0.985 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.624 | 12.1, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.488 | 0.883 | -1.24, 2.22 | 0.581 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.084 | 0.707 | -1.47, 1.30 | 0.906 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.083 | 0.999 | -1.88, 2.04 | 0.934 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.007 | 26.2, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.814 | 1.425 | -1.98, 3.61 | 0.569 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.476 | 1.142 | -2.71, 1.76 | 0.679 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.105 | 1.615 | -3.06, 3.27 | 0.948 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.623 | 17.7, 20.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.977 | 0.881 | -0.750, 2.70 | 0.270 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.109 | 0.572 | -1.01, 1.23 | 0.850 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.469 | 0.808 | -2.05, 1.12 | 0.564 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.382 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.721 | 0.540 | -0.338, 1.78 | 0.185 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.034 | 0.509 | -0.962, 1.03 | 0.946 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.053 | 0.719 | -1.36, 1.46 | 0.942 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.469 | 11.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.95 | 0.664 | -3.25, -0.652 | 0.004 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.624 | 0.491 | -1.59, 0.338 | 0.209 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.848 | 0.694 | -0.513, 2.21 | 0.228 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.073 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.551 | 9.48, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 0.779 | -2.57, 0.480 | 0.182 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.062 | 0.524 | -0.965, 1.09 | 0.906 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.15 | 0.741 | -2.60, 0.303 | 0.127 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.579 | 9.26, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.44 | 0.819 | -3.05, 0.164 | 0.081 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.224 | 0.602 | -1.40, 0.956 | 0.712 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.539 | 0.851 | -2.21, 1.13 | 0.530 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.65 | 0.569 | 7.54, 9.77 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.791 | 0.805 | -2.37, 0.787 | 0.329 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.998 | 0.507 | 0.005, 1.99 | 0.055 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.88 | 0.717 | -3.28, -0.470 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.584 | 26.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.28 | 2.240 | -7.67, 1.11 | 0.147 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.919 | 1.379 | -1.78, 3.62 | 0.508 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.61 | 1.950 | -7.43, 0.213 | 0.070 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(126) = 17.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.45], t(126) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.75], t(126) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.99], t(126) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(126) = 42.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.51], t(126) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.80], t(126) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.58], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.10], t(126) = 39.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.18], t(126) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.88], t(126) = 0.38, p = 0.700; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.39], t(126) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.48, 12.66], t(126) = 39.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.16], t(126) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.12], t(126) = -2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.61], t(126) = 1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.39], t(126) = 37.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.56], t(126) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.50])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.06], t(126) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.84, 95% CI [0.40, 3.28], t(126) = 2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.13, 1.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(126) = 31.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.39], t(126) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.28], t(126) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.00], t(126) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(126) = 30.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.93, -0.02], t(126) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.85, -8.58e-03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.31], t(126) = -1.27, p = 0.202; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [0.46, 2.94], t(126) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.75, 95% CI [0.20, 1.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.05, 34.86], t(126) = 21.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.19, 95% CI [-7.30, 0.92], t(126) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.46], t(126) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-4.96, 1.51], t(126) = -1.05, p = 0.296; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.08, 23.99], t(126) = 30.28, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.69], t(126) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.41], t(126) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.89], t(126) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.38, 26.85], t(126) = 28.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.92], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.72], t(126) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.60], t(126) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.63])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.89], t(126) = 18.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.49, 95% CI [0.62, 6.36], t(126) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.09, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.56, 3.14], t(126) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-3.46, 3.18], t(126) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(126) = 18.77, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.62], t(126) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.28], t(126) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.09], t(126) = -0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.50, 16.78], t(126) = 18.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.48, 2.16], t(126) = -0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.83], t(126) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.52])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.74], t(126) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.69, 23.42], t(126) = 22.64, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.83], t(126) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.67], t(126) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-3.16, 2.38], t(126) = -0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(126) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.61], t(126) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.36], t(126) = -0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.75, 3.24], t(126) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(126) = 30.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.15], t(126) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.81, 0.25], t(126) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.08])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.38], t(126) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.80])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.40], t(126) = 36.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.02, 2.54], t(126) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [6.16e-03, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.00], t(126) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.72], t(126) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(126) = 24.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.26, 95% CI [0.97, 3.54], t(126) = 3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [4.66e-03, 1.83], t(126) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [1.45e-03, 0.57])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.70], t(126) = -0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.68], t(126) = 33.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.53, 95% CI [1.23, 5.84], t(126) = 3.00, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.51], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.08], t(126) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.05, 30.62], t(126) = 19.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.01], t(126) = -0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.92, 2.77], t(126) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-5.09, 1.53], t(126) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(126) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.29, 3.78], t(126) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.56], t(126) = 0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.55, 2.65], t(126) = 0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(126) = 27.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.75], t(126) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.27], t(126) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.46], t(126) = -0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.32, 32.21], t(126) = 23.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [-0.59, 6.32], t(126) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.61], t(126) = 0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.81], t(126) = 0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(126) = 60.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.11], t(126) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.63], t(126) = 0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = 5.85e-03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.20], t(126) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.86])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.89, 15.83], t(126) = 29.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.70], t(126) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.76], t(126) = -0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.63], t(126) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 4.79e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(126) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.22], t(126) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.30], t(126) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.88, 2.04], t(126) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.16], t(126) = 27.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.98, 3.61], t(126) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.71, 1.76], t(126) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.06, 3.27], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.17], t(126) = 30.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.70], t(126) = 1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.23], t(126) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.12], t(126) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(126) = 37.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.78], t(126) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.03], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.46], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(126) = 26.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.65], t(126) = -2.94, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.34], t(126) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.21], t(126) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.48, 11.64], t(126) = 19.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.48], t(126) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.09], t(126) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.30], t(126) = -1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(126) = 17.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.16], t(126) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.96], t(126) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.13], t(126) = -0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.77], t(126) = 15.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.79], t(126) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [4.52e-03, 1.99], t(126) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [1.21e-03, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-3.28, -0.47], t(126) = -2.62, p = 0.009; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.13])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.50, 32.71], t(126) = 18.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.67, 1.11], t(126) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.62], t(126) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.61, 95% CI [-7.43, 0.21], t(126) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 419.887 | 428.536 | -206.944 | 413.887 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 421.998 | 439.294 | -204.999 | 409.998 | 3.890 | 3 | 0.274 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 638.041 | 646.689 | -316.020 | 632.041 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 641.065 | 658.362 | -314.533 | 629.065 | 2.975 | 3 | 0.395 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 776.116 | 784.764 | -385.058 | 770.116 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 776.575 | 793.872 | -382.288 | 764.575 | 5.541 | 3 | 0.136 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 530.212 | 538.861 | -262.106 | 524.212 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 528.830 | 546.126 | -258.415 | 516.830 | 7.383 | 3 | 0.061 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 653.750 | 662.398 | -323.875 | 647.750 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 651.809 | 669.106 | -319.905 | 639.809 | 7.941 | 3 | 0.047 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 620.776 | 629.424 | -307.388 | 614.776 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 614.743 | 632.040 | -301.372 | 602.743 | 12.033 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 588.467 | 597.115 | -291.234 | 582.467 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 585.844 | 603.140 | -286.922 | 573.844 | 8.623 | 3 | 0.035 |
symptom | null | 3 | 928.954 | 937.602 | -461.477 | 922.954 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 929.915 | 947.211 | -458.957 | 917.915 | 5.039 | 3 | 0.169 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 749.477 | 758.125 | -371.738 | 743.477 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 752.304 | 769.601 | -370.152 | 740.304 | 3.172 | 3 | 0.366 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 809.953 | 818.601 | -401.976 | 803.953 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 812.317 | 829.613 | -400.158 | 800.317 | 3.636 | 3 | 0.304 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 868.078 | 876.727 | -431.039 | 862.078 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 867.110 | 884.407 | -427.555 | 855.110 | 6.968 | 3 | 0.073 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 687.890 | 696.538 | -340.945 | 681.890 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 692.124 | 709.421 | -340.062 | 680.124 | 1.766 | 3 | 0.622 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 802.767 | 811.415 | -398.383 | 796.767 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 807.332 | 824.629 | -397.666 | 795.332 | 1.434 | 3 | 0.698 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 832.751 | 841.400 | -413.376 | 826.751 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 837.415 | 854.712 | -412.707 | 825.415 | 1.337 | 3 | 0.720 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 745.509 | 754.158 | -369.755 | 739.509 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 747.211 | 764.508 | -367.605 | 735.211 | 4.298 | 3 | 0.231 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 644.888 | 653.536 | -319.444 | 638.888 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 644.319 | 661.615 | -316.159 | 632.319 | 6.569 | 3 | 0.087 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 642.785 | 651.433 | -318.392 | 636.785 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 642.685 | 659.982 | -315.343 | 630.685 | 6.099 | 3 | 0.107 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 652.911 | 661.560 | -323.456 | 646.911 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 644.058 | 661.355 | -316.029 | 632.058 | 14.853 | 3 | 0.002 |
els | null | 3 | 800.308 | 808.956 | -397.154 | 794.308 | |||
els | random | 6 | 794.681 | 811.978 | -391.341 | 782.681 | 11.627 | 3 | 0.009 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 921.458 | 930.106 | -457.729 | 915.458 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 924.438 | 941.735 | -456.219 | 912.438 | 3.020 | 3 | 0.389 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 765.618 | 774.266 | -379.809 | 759.618 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 767.194 | 784.491 | -377.597 | 755.194 | 4.424 | 3 | 0.219 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 703.318 | 711.966 | -348.659 | 697.318 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 707.462 | 724.759 | -347.731 | 695.462 | 1.856 | 3 | 0.603 |
shs | null | 3 | 901.359 | 910.007 | -447.680 | 895.359 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 904.018 | 921.315 | -446.009 | 892.018 | 3.341 | 3 | 0.342 |
esteem | null | 3 | 465.508 | 474.157 | -229.754 | 459.508 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 468.303 | 485.600 | -228.152 | 456.303 | 3.205 | 3 | 0.361 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 669.586 | 678.235 | -331.793 | 663.586 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 674.463 | 691.760 | -331.231 | 662.463 | 1.124 | 3 | 0.771 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 726.268 | 734.917 | -360.134 | 720.268 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 731.863 | 749.159 | -359.931 | 719.863 | 0.406 | 3 | 0.939 |
mlq | null | 3 | 853.064 | 861.713 | -423.532 | 847.064 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 858.369 | 875.666 | -423.184 | 846.369 | 0.696 | 3 | 0.874 |
empower | null | 3 | 709.613 | 718.262 | -351.807 | 703.613 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 714.162 | 731.459 | -351.081 | 702.162 | 1.451 | 3 | 0.694 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 610.532 | 619.180 | -302.266 | 604.532 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 614.216 | 631.513 | -301.108 | 602.216 | 2.316 | 3 | 0.510 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 653.319 | 661.967 | -323.659 | 647.319 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 650.312 | 667.609 | -319.156 | 638.312 | 9.006 | 3 | 0.029 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 686.387 | 695.035 | -340.194 | 680.387 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 684.702 | 701.999 | -336.351 | 672.702 | 7.685 | 3 | 0.053 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 705.268 | 713.916 | -349.634 | 699.268 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 705.326 | 722.623 | -346.663 | 693.326 | 5.942 | 3 | 0.114 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 691.195 | 699.843 | -342.597 | 685.195 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 687.835 | 705.131 | -337.917 | 675.835 | 9.360 | 3 | 0.025 |
sss | null | 3 | 958.205 | 966.853 | -476.102 | 952.205 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 956.053 | 973.350 | -472.026 | 944.053 | 8.152 | 3 | 0.043 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 43 | 3.09 ± 1.18 | 43 | 3.05 ± 1.18 | 0.855 | 0.047 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 23 | 3.32 ± 1.17 | -0.225 | 23 | 3.52 ± 1.17 | -0.478 | 0.555 | -0.206 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 43 | 17.86 ± 2.74 | 43 | 18.21 ± 2.74 | 0.557 | -0.164 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 23 | 17.52 ± 2.66 | 0.160 | 23 | 18.83 ± 2.66 | -0.292 | 0.097 | -0.616 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 43 | 29.63 ± 4.94 | 43 | 30.72 ± 4.94 | 0.307 | -0.386 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 23 | 29.94 ± 4.41 | -0.109 | 23 | 32.19 ± 4.41 | -0.520 | 0.085 | -0.797 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 43 | 12.07 ± 1.98 | 43 | 12.40 ± 1.98 | 0.448 | -0.313 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 23 | 11.36 ± 1.73 | 0.678 | 23 | 12.48 ± 1.73 | -0.082 | 0.030 | -1.073 |
ras_goal | 1st | 43 | 17.49 ± 3.03 | 43 | 17.77 ± 3.03 | 0.670 | -0.151 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 23 | 16.53 ± 2.75 | 0.518 | 23 | 18.65 ± 2.75 | -0.481 | 0.010 | -1.150 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 43 | 12.98 ± 2.74 | 43 | 13.21 ± 2.74 | 0.695 | -0.161 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 23 | 13.45 ± 2.39 | -0.329 | 23 | 14.54 ± 2.39 | -0.919 | 0.126 | -0.751 |
ras_domination | 1st | 43 | 10.42 ± 2.26 | 43 | 9.44 ± 2.26 | 0.048 | 0.603 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 23 | 9.85 ± 2.15 | 0.353 | 23 | 10.57 ± 2.15 | -0.696 | 0.256 | -0.446 |
symptom | 1st | 43 | 31.95 ± 9.73 | 43 | 28.77 ± 9.73 | 0.132 | 0.789 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 23 | 32.13 ± 8.04 | -0.044 | 23 | 27.22 ± 8.04 | 0.383 | 0.040 | 1.216 |
slof_work | 1st | 43 | 22.53 ± 4.88 | 43 | 23.16 ± 4.88 | 0.552 | -0.294 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 23 | 21.73 ± 4.08 | 0.375 | 23 | 22.54 ± 4.08 | 0.289 | 0.501 | -0.379 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 43 | 25.12 ± 5.81 | 43 | 26.58 ± 5.81 | 0.245 | -0.484 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 23 | 24.14 ± 5.06 | 0.321 | 23 | 26.81 ± 5.06 | -0.076 | 0.076 | -0.882 |
satisfaction | 1st | 43 | 18.86 ± 6.79 | 43 | 22.35 ± 6.79 | 0.019 | -0.817 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 23 | 19.65 ± 6.21 | -0.185 | 23 | 23.00 ± 6.21 | -0.153 | 0.070 | -0.785 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 43 | 10.67 ± 3.73 | 43 | 11.72 ± 3.73 | 0.196 | -0.561 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 23 | 10.91 ± 3.21 | -0.125 | 23 | 11.56 ± 3.21 | 0.085 | 0.491 | -0.350 |
mhc_social | 1st | 43 | 15.14 ± 5.49 | 43 | 14.98 ± 5.49 | 0.891 | 0.050 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 23 | 16.16 ± 4.95 | -0.312 | 23 | 15.17 ± 4.95 | -0.060 | 0.501 | 0.301 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 43 | 21.56 ± 6.24 | 43 | 22.74 ± 6.24 | 0.381 | -0.336 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 23 | 22.27 ± 5.55 | -0.201 | 23 | 23.06 ± 5.55 | -0.090 | 0.627 | -0.226 |
resilisnce | 1st | 43 | 16.28 ± 4.41 | 43 | 17.02 ± 4.41 | 0.436 | -0.293 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 23 | 16.23 ± 3.94 | 0.020 | 23 | 18.22 ± 3.94 | -0.470 | 0.089 | -0.782 |
social_provision | 1st | 43 | 13.26 ± 2.89 | 43 | 14.19 ± 2.89 | 0.139 | -0.495 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 23 | 12.47 ± 2.67 | 0.416 | 23 | 14.32 ± 2.67 | -0.074 | 0.020 | -0.984 |
els_value_living | 1st | 43 | 16.51 ± 2.98 | 43 | 17.79 ± 2.98 | 0.049 | -0.755 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 23 | 16.57 ± 2.65 | -0.034 | 23 | 18.24 ± 2.65 | -0.266 | 0.035 | -0.987 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 43 | 11.53 ± 3.05 | 43 | 13.79 ± 3.05 | 0.001 | -1.380 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 23 | 12.45 ± 2.67 | -0.561 | 23 | 14.12 ± 2.67 | -0.200 | 0.036 | -1.019 |
els | 1st | 43 | 28.05 ± 5.46 | 43 | 31.58 ± 5.46 | 0.003 | -1.262 | ||
els | 2nd | 23 | 28.98 ± 4.73 | -0.335 | 23 | 32.38 ± 4.73 | -0.285 | 0.016 | -1.212 |
social_connect | 1st | 43 | 27.84 ± 9.32 | 43 | 25.91 ± 9.32 | 0.339 | 0.465 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 23 | 28.26 ± 7.82 | -0.103 | 23 | 24.55 ± 7.82 | 0.326 | 0.110 | 0.894 |
shs_agency | 1st | 43 | 13.74 ± 4.81 | 43 | 15.49 ± 4.81 | 0.096 | -0.654 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 23 | 13.82 ± 4.25 | -0.028 | 23 | 16.11 ± 4.25 | -0.234 | 0.070 | -0.859 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 43 | 16.02 ± 3.86 | 43 | 17.14 ± 3.86 | 0.183 | -0.533 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 23 | 16.13 ± 3.39 | -0.050 | 23 | 17.06 ± 3.39 | 0.039 | 0.355 | -0.444 |
shs | 1st | 43 | 29.77 ± 8.17 | 43 | 32.63 ± 8.17 | 0.108 | -0.658 | ||
shs | 2nd | 23 | 29.95 ± 7.15 | -0.042 | 23 | 33.18 ± 7.15 | -0.128 | 0.128 | -0.743 |
esteem | 1st | 43 | 12.93 ± 1.41 | 43 | 12.44 ± 1.41 | 0.110 | 0.413 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 23 | 12.94 ± 1.39 | -0.007 | 23 | 12.77 ± 1.39 | -0.275 | 0.676 | 0.145 |
mlq_search | 1st | 43 | 14.86 ± 3.26 | 43 | 15.19 ± 3.26 | 0.644 | -0.157 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 23 | 14.47 ± 2.99 | 0.186 | 23 | 14.82 ± 2.99 | 0.178 | 0.700 | -0.164 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 43 | 13.33 ± 4.09 | 43 | 13.81 ± 4.09 | 0.581 | -0.195 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 23 | 13.24 ± 3.72 | 0.033 | 23 | 13.81 ± 3.72 | 0.000 | 0.604 | -0.228 |
mlq | 1st | 43 | 28.19 ± 6.61 | 43 | 29.00 ± 6.61 | 0.569 | -0.201 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 23 | 27.71 ± 6.01 | 0.117 | 23 | 28.63 ± 6.01 | 0.091 | 0.605 | -0.227 |
empower | 1st | 43 | 18.95 ± 4.09 | 43 | 19.93 ± 4.09 | 0.270 | -0.490 | ||
empower | 2nd | 23 | 19.06 ± 3.50 | -0.054 | 23 | 19.57 ± 3.50 | 0.181 | 0.623 | -0.255 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 43 | 14.42 ± 2.51 | 43 | 15.14 ± 2.51 | 0.185 | -0.391 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 23 | 14.45 ± 2.40 | -0.019 | 23 | 15.23 ± 2.40 | -0.047 | 0.276 | -0.420 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 43 | 12.42 ± 3.08 | 43 | 10.47 ± 3.08 | 0.004 | 1.129 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 23 | 11.79 ± 2.73 | 0.361 | 23 | 10.69 ± 2.73 | -0.129 | 0.172 | 0.639 |
sss_affective | 1st | 43 | 10.56 ± 3.61 | 43 | 9.51 ± 3.61 | 0.182 | 0.571 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 23 | 10.62 ± 3.12 | -0.034 | 23 | 8.42 ± 3.12 | 0.593 | 0.019 | 1.198 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 43 | 10.40 ± 3.80 | 43 | 8.95 ± 3.80 | 0.082 | 0.680 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 23 | 10.17 ± 3.36 | 0.105 | 23 | 8.19 ± 3.36 | 0.360 | 0.048 | 0.934 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 43 | 8.65 ± 3.73 | 43 | 7.86 ± 3.73 | 0.329 | 0.448 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 23 | 9.65 ± 3.17 | -0.565 | 23 | 6.98 ± 3.17 | 0.497 | 0.005 | 1.510 |
sss | 1st | 43 | 29.60 ± 10.39 | 43 | 26.33 ± 10.39 | 0.147 | 0.684 | ||
sss | 2nd | 23 | 30.52 ± 8.78 | -0.192 | 23 | 23.64 ± 8.78 | 0.561 | 0.009 | 1.436 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(120.85) = -0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.46)
2st
t(127.38) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.88)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(115.98) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.52)
2st
t(127.31) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.86)
ras_confidence
1st
t(100.66) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.21)
2st
t(127.88) = 1.74, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.32 to 4.83)
ras_willingness
1st
t(97.76) = 0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.17)
2st
t(127.14) = 2.19, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.13)
ras_goal
1st
t(103.06) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.57)
2st
t(128.00) = 2.62, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (0.52 to 3.72)
ras_reliance
1st
t(97.88) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.40)
2st
t(127.19) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.48)
ras_domination
1st
t(111.08) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.94 to -0.01)
2st
t(127.51) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.98)
symptom
1st
t(92.22) = -1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-7.35 to 0.98)
2st
t(121.39) = -2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-9.60 to -0.22)
slof_work
1st
t(93.23) = 0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.72)
2st
t(123.12) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 3.19)
slof_relationship
1st
t(97.44) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.95)
2st
t(127.00) = 1.79, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.28 to 5.62)
satisfaction
1st
t(104.45) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.59 to 6.39)
2st
t(127.97) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.27 to 6.97)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(96.35) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.64)
2st
t(126.38) = 0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.22 to 2.53)
mhc_social
1st
t(102.15) = -0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.19)
2st
t(127.99) = -0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.87 to 1.90)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(100.11) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.86)
2st
t(127.80) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.44 to 4.03)
resilisnce
1st
t(100.88) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.63)
2st
t(127.90) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.31 to 4.29)
social_provision
1st
t(106.00) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.17)
2st
t(127.88) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.41)
els_value_living
1st
t(100.33) = 1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.55)
2st
t(127.83) = 2.14, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.12 to 3.22)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(98.40) = 3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (0.95 to 3.56)
2st
t(127.38) = 2.12, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.11 to 3.22)
els
1st
t(97.02) = 3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (1.20 to 5.87)
2st
t(126.78) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.63 to 6.16)
social_connect
1st
t(93.56) = -0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.06)
2st
t(123.61) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-8.27 to 0.85)
shs_agency
1st
t(99.46) = 1.68, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.80)
2st
t(127.67) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.19 to 4.77)
shs_pathway
1st
t(98.71) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.77)
2st
t(127.48) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.91)
shs
1st
t(98.14) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.64 to 6.36)
2st
t(127.29) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.94 to 7.40)
esteem
1st
t(121.03) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.11)
2st
t(127.39) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.64)
mlq_search
1st
t(105.12) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.72)
2st
t(127.93) = 0.39, p = 0.700, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.09)
mlq_presence
1st
t(103.31) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.24)
2st
t(128.00) = 0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.74)
mlq
1st
t(103.38) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.64)
2st
t(128.00) = 0.52, p = 0.605, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.58 to 4.42)
empower
1st
t(95.69) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.73)
2st
t(125.90) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.55)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(112.74) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.79)
2st
t(127.41) = 1.10, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.17)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(99.95) = -2.94, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.64)
2st
t(127.77) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.49)
sss_affective
1st
t(96.74) = -1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.50)
2st
t(126.63) = -2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-4.02 to -0.37)
sss_behavior
1st
t(99.69) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.07 to 0.18)
2st
t(127.72) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.93, 95% CI (-3.94 to -0.02)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(94.92) = -0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.81)
2st
t(125.21) = -2.85, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-4.52 to -0.81)
sss
1st
t(94.36) = -1.46, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.73 to 1.17)
2st
t(124.62) = -2.66, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-12.01 to -1.76)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(64.07) = 1.76, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.01)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(60.54) = 1.06, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.79)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(51.95) = 1.82, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 3.09)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(50.52) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.68)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(53.17) = 1.70, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.93)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(50.57) = 3.21, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.50 to 2.16)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(57.52) = 2.50, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.03)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(47.85) = -1.32, p = 0.384, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.90 to 0.80)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(48.33) = -1.00, p = 0.644, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.62)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(50.36) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.97)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(53.89) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.07)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(49.83) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.92)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(52.70) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.06)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(51.68) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.34)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(52.06) = 1.65, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.65)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(54.70) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.20)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(51.79) = 0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.42)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(50.83) = 0.70, p = 0.975, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.27)
els
1st vs 2st
t(50.15) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.41)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(48.49) = -1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.76 to 1.05)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(51.35) = 0.82, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.15)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(50.98) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.12)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(50.70) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.05)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(64.22) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.97)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(54.24) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(53.30) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.42)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(53.34) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.67 to 1.93)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(49.51) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.79)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(58.50) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.11)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(51.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.21)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(50.02) = -2.07, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.14 to -0.03)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(51.47) = -1.26, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.45)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(49.14) = -1.72, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.14)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(48.87) = -1.94, p = 0.115, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.47 to 0.09)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(64.07) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.76)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(60.54) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.83)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(51.95) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.93)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(50.52) = -2.37, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-1.30 to -0.11)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(53.17) = -1.83, p = 0.146, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.09)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(50.57) = 1.15, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.31)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(57.52) = -1.27, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.33)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(47.85) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.53)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(48.33) = -1.30, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.44)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(50.36) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.77)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(53.89) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.21)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(49.83) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.31)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(52.70) = 1.10, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.88)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(51.68) = 0.70, p = 0.969, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.72)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(52.06) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.40)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(54.70) = -1.48, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(51.79) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.03)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(50.83) = 1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.86)
els
1st vs 2st
t(50.15) = 1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.55)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(48.49) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.83)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(51.35) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.60)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(50.98) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.31)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(50.70) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.68)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(64.22) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.65)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(54.24) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.79)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(53.30) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.34)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(53.34) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.78 to 1.83)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(49.51) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.26)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(58.50) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.06)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(51.60) = -1.27, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.37)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(50.02) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.12)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(51.47) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.99)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(49.14) = 1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.02)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(48.87) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.70)